Re: [Epic] different scales

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:32:21 -0500

Andy Skinner wrote:
>
> I'd agree with Mike's rant about scales, except that this is a GW game. GW
> routinely ignores standard wargame basics. I asked them once about the
> figure scale of epic figures when I was just starting, and they acted like
> they'd never heard of the common scale names (either by ratio (1/285 or
> whatever) or height (6mm)). They just claimed they are all in scale with
> each other, so why does it matter? I don't remember any descriptions of
> figure scale for their games.
>
> Similarly, I think that GW assumes figure scale is ground scale, and just
> ignores any strange effects this has on weapon ranges. They never mention
> the concept, where Dirtside II makes this very explicit.
>
> On the other hand, I usually assume this to be the case, anyway, so I don't
> worry about units not blocking LOS, or blown up tanks blocking any terrain.
> I still regret the ratio of movement ranges to firing range a little bit,
> except that I think it has improved the action of the games.


The whole problem is that GW should be called FW or MW where F stands
for Figure or M is Miniature. While E40K comes close to being a real
set of war games rules, it still has some problems, the 1:1.5:3 ratio of
small arms:tanks:artillery range being the one of biggest.

Command Decision 3rd edition is out now. I am giving very strong
thoughts to doing army lists and weapons charts for the major WH40K/Epic
races. Just as a test how many list members would like to see this?
Or for that matter have CD3?
Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 22:32:21 UTC